There were two old men who dwelt together for many years and who never quarreled. Then one said to the other: "Let us pick a quarrel with each other like other men do. "I do not know how quarrels arise," answered his companion. So the other said to him: "Look, I will put a brick down here between us and I will say "This is mine." Then you can say "No it is not, it is mine." Then we will be able to have a quarrel." So they placed the brick between them and the first one said: "This is mine." His companion answered him: "This is not so, for it is mine." To this, the first one said: "If it is so and the brick is yours, then take it and go your way." And so they were not able to have a quarrel.
I read this story this morning. And I think taking such an attitude might make all the difference in the legal issues surrounding the current Anglican schism in America. What if both the so-called "liberals" and the so-called "conservatives" took the attitude that it would be better to loose their property than to engage in an unneccesary quarrel? Might it change our attitudes of each other (if not our opinions of each others' theology)? And, for the sake of argument, what if each was willing to walk away from their property? - We could take all that money we've been giving to lawyers and give it instead to the hungry, the poor, the alone, the neglected....
I wonder, what would Jesus do?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
That's actually a really great story. :)
It's so hard to convince hundreds of thousands of people to be holy.
Or rather, holiness, being set apart, means hearing God's voice and acting on it regardless of contrary human opinions (that's what you're set apart from). And for hundreds of thousands of people to hear God's voice together takes longer (scale! abstraction!) than for one person to hear God's voice.
So first, we get frustrated with the speed at which big wheels turn. And second, our own discernments turn the big wheel ever so slightly, and we're all turning it in various and sundry directions.
But you're right, it'd be a lot easier if everyone could just chill out. Sheesh.
On the other hand, "mobilizing your base" feels necessary to get the big wheel moving how you want it. That means painting with broad strokes, inciting strong reactions. So then that just brings it back to our own personal discernment: do I believe this crap enough to piss people off by it? Do I believe it enough to be confident and humble at the same time?
Leander's got some really good stuff in his dissertation about family systems theory that applies here, in terms of people acting calmly and confidently out of a center of conviction, thereby challenging the status quo of an emotional system for the better. He actually reads the atonement itself this way, and it's rather moving.
Post a Comment